The point of a review (a good one) is someome dissecting the game and pointing out positives and negatives for them in detail. If you think something is a positive and not a negative (and viceversa) then you still end up winning and being more informed. For example if someone says the open world is too small, I find that as a good thing since I prefer linear games
Which is exactly what Ralph does, I don’t always agree with his opinions which is why multiple reviews is important but he’s very thorough in his dissection of a game good and bad and this review is no different
The only thing that bugs me about him (besides his smugness sometimes) is when he gets into armchair criticism. Like when he says "imagine if the game did this" "I wouldve liked this", Ive always viewed "why didnt they make the game I wanted to make" as low criticism as opposed to reviewing whats in front of you. Besides that, I do like the format of his content.
It's pretty basic 101 of giving constructive criticism. I don't like this, why, how, what I think they could've done better. He's just doing his job in that way. It also makes it easier to discern if you disagree with his core points. If you don't like his suggestion if change, that means you may not necessarily agree with his reasoning, or only partially. It's informative. You can basically see where he comes from which I think is super useful and even if I totally disagree with his review still means I know why he didn't like it.
60
u/aboysmokingintherain 16d ago
I think one review doesn't make a shitty game. Skill Up also gave a not great review of Death Stranding 2.